Idaho Statewide Land Use Analysis Project
County and County Seat Comprehensive Plan Analysis
University of Idaho
January-December 2009
Team Members: Assistant Professors Tamara Laninga and Sandra Pinel, and Research Assistant Jase Brooks with help from Monica Walker, Morgan Bessaw, Liza Pulsipher, Karla Nelson and Matt Brookshier.
Table of Contents
PageI. Introduction / 2
II. Comprehensive Plan Scoring Method / 2
III. Findings from Comprehensive Plan Analysis / 3
A. State Code Congruency (all plans) / 3
B. Plan Scores (all plans) / 4
C. County Comprehensive Plan Findings / 6
D. County Seat Comprehensive Plan Findings / 7
E. Other City Plan Findings / 8
F. All City Plan Findings / 9
IV. Summary Comments / 9
V. Deliverables / 10
Tables
1 Congruency with State Code / 4
2 Descriptive Statistics for all Plans / 5
3 Descriptive Statistics for Counties / 6
4 Descriptive Statistics for County Seat Plans / 7
5 Descriptive Statistics for Other City Plans / 8
6 Descriptive Statistics for All Available City Plans / 9
Figures
1 Score Histogram / 5
2 Map of Idaho County and County Seat Comprehensive Plan Evaluation Scores / 11
Appendices
A.
1. Idaho Statutes. Title 67: State Government and State Affairs; Chapter 65: Local Land Use Planning
2. Specific Data Items for Each Comprehensive Plan Element / 12
14
B List of Additional Elements / 17
C List of Counties, County Seats and Other Cities included in Analysis / 18
I. Introduction to the comprehensive plan analysis
The Idaho Local Land Use Planning Act was passed in 1975. Idaho is now the 6th fastest growing state in the country. Idaho Code requires cities and counties to have comprehensive plans (a written vision for their community) and land use zoning ordinances. Unlike some of its neighboring states, Idaho does not have a statewide land use agency or any state-based funding for cities and counties to carry out their land use planning work. Furthermore, many Idaho cities and counties have limited or nonexistent budgets for planning staff- in some cases, city clerks, city treasurers, and city engineers serve that role. Because of these limitations, many communities are using comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances that were put in place when the state law was enacted in 1975.
Idaho Smart growth convened a steering committee including teams from the University of Idaho and Boise State University to complete a comprehensive analysis of Idaho’s laws, state, county, and city policies, rules and permitting provisions to examine the extent to which Idaho county and city comprehensive plans are meeting the goals and requirements of the Idaho Local Land Use Planning Act. To undertake this task comprehensive plans for all county and county seats, as well as a number of other large cities were analyzed for congruence with state enabling planning and land use statues, a survey was completed, and focus groups where held around the state.
The information that follows provides a review of the analysis from the comprehensive plan analysis conducted by the University of Idaho team.
II. Comprehensive Plan Scoring Method
A total of 40 out of 44 Idaho county comprehensive plans were collected; 30 out of 44 county seat plans were collected; and 31 other city plans were collected.[1] These “other cities” often include the largest city in a county, especially if it was not the county seat. Plans were collected from county and city websites and direct request.
Each collected plan was reviewed for congruency with the Idaho Local Land Use Act’s thirteen required elements, outlined in Title 67, Chapter 65 §67-6508. A document called Smart Towns: A Guide to Growth Management for Idaho City and County Officials available from the Association of Idaho Citiesexpounds on the specific data requirements for each of the thirteen elements and presents a user-friendly interpretation of data needs for each element. To score the plans, a rubric for each element was created using the suggested interpretations of the Local Land Use Planning Act requirements as described in the 2007 Smart Towns guide distributed by the Association of Idaho Cities, which is an organization of Idaho municipalities that works to increase the capacity of cities to practice effective governance. The document is well aligned with the state code, but does include some items that are not explicitly required as stated in the statues. The Idaho Local Land Use Planning Act statute and the Smart Towns list of element topics are included in Appendix A.
The bold items in the Smart Towns list are explicitly asked for in the statues. The other topics may be implicit in the statute’s request for an ‘analysis’ or are recommended by the Association of Idaho Cities as part of a comprehensive, well-informed element. For the sake of maintaining reliable scoring, all plans were subject to the same rubric parameters despite the planning capacity of each jurisdiction. The final score is the sum of the number of rubric items included in each county and city plan. The maximum score is 58 points. No plan received a perfect score of 58. The highest county comprehensive plan was Madison County (48); the highest county seat comprehensive plan was Jerome (47); and the highest “other city” comprehensive plan was Meridian (49).
A number of additional elements were also considered during the comprehensive plan analysis. These elements came from previous studies that have looked at comprehensive plans. The list of additional elements that may have been included in a comprehensive plan are listed in Appendix B.
III. Findings from Comprehensive Plan Analysis
This section provides descriptive statistics for the county, county seat and other city comprehensive plans that were analyzed for this project. Appendix C lists all the counties, county seats and other cities included in the analysis along with their plan score.
A. State Code Congruency (all plans)
Overall plan congruency with state statutes, when considering the specific data items listed in the Smart Town guide, is fairly low. Many plans only include goal and policy information with very little data as required by state code. Some plans include data, but it is so outdated that it would be useless for decision-making and analysis. Some plans reference additional reports used by planning commissions to create each element. However, those plans still did not include much of the data required by Idaho State code as described by the Smart Towns document. Table 1 shows congruency with the state code rubric for each element, based on how well each plan incorporates specific data items as outlined in the Smart Towns guide. The third column, “PlansIncluding Element,” shows the percentage of plans that include the element in their plan. The fourth column, “Statewide Element Congruency,” shows the percentage of all plans that included the specific data items as outline in the Smart Towns guide.
To calculate the congruency with state code for each element, each plan’s element points were divided by its total number of points possible to generate a percentage of points attained for each plan. These were then averaged for the state. The lowest percentages from this calculation represent the weakest congruency between state code and actual plans reviewed.The sample of 101 plans represents only 51% congruency with state code overall.
The Property Rights element is the strongest element, but also the easiest to meet. The State Attorney General’s Takings Checklist must be present in the plan or it must be referenced in this element’s narrative. The weakest elements statewide are Community Design and Hazards. The state standards for the Community Design element require information about signs, landscape, and building design. These are usually found in city code as ordinances, which means that they may be present, but were neglected to be included in the comprehensive plan. It is notable that one of the weakest element congruency happens to be the element that Idahoans may perceive as most invasive to private property rights. The Hazards element should include information about flooding, avalanche and mudslides, irrigation ditches, railroad crossings, and bulk fuel storage. Very few plans included information on all five topics with most plans just including information about flooding or mudslides and avalanches.
Table 1 Congruency with State Code
Elements / Potential Points / Plans Including Element / Statewide Element CongruencySpecial Areas / 1 / 75% / 75%
Property Rights / 1 / 74% / 70%
Population / 5 / 94% / 68%
Implementation / 1 / 72% / 67%
Public Services / 9 / 89% / 62%
Land Use / 4 / 95% / 59%
Natural Resources / 4 / 86% / 59%
Economic Development / 4 / 82% / 52%
Housing / 3 / 75% / 52%
Recreation / 4 / 82% / 46%
Transportation / 10 / 88% / 42%
Schools/Education / 3 / 76% / 40%
Hazards / 5 / 82% / 35%
Community Design / 4 / 58% / 32%
Total / 58 / 51%
N=101
B. Plan Scores
The mean score for all plans reviewed is 30.3, with a standard deviation of 11.74. The distribution of score is slightly skewed to the left, with several peaks in frequency through the range. The mode, or the score that appears most frequently, is 34. A larger sample of plans may help to correct the distribution. The average age of comprehensive plans is about 6 years; the median year of adoption is 2005; and the mean number of pages is 94. Table 2 shows descriptive statistics for all plans reviewed. Figure 1 is a histogram of plan scores.
Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for All Plans
N / Minimum / Maximum / Mean / Std. DeviationCommunity Design / 100 / 0 / 4 / 1.65 / 1.660
Economic Development / 100 / 0 / 4 / 2.09 / 1.240
Hazard / 100 / 0 / 5 / 1.78 / 1.177
Housing / 100 / 0 / 3 / 1.58 / 1.148
Implementation / 100 / 0 / 1 / .73 / .446
Land Use / 100 / 0 / 4 / 2.40 / 1.025
Natural Resources / 100 / 0 / 4 / 2.38 / 1.376
Population / 100 / 0 / 5 / 3.35 / 1.480
Property Rights / 100 / 0 / 1 / .75 / .435
Public Services / 100 / 0 / 9 / 5.64 / 2.859
Recreation / 100 / 0 / 4 / 1.86 / 1.271
Schools / 100 / 0 / 3 / 1.21 / .844
Special Areas / 100 / 0 / 1 / .76 / .429
Transportation / 100 / 0 / 10 / 4.28 / 2.705
Vision* / 100 / 0 / 1 / .31 / .465
History* / 100 / 0 / 1 / .42 / .496
Year / 102 / 1980 / 2009 / 2002.95 / 5.476
Pages / 101 / 7 / 520 / 93.61 / 79.860
Score / 101 / 3 / 49 / 30.30 / 11.739
Figure 1: Score Histogram
Most common additional or elected components are Vision (31%) and History (42%). Some plans, but not many, also included citizen participation sections.
C. County Comprehensive Plan Findings
The mean score for county comprehensive plans is 30.5, with a standard deviation of 11.88. The mean plan age of county comprehensive plans is about 6 years; the median year of adoption is 2000; the mean number of pages is 104. Seven county plans used consultant assistance (17.5% of available plans). The following county plans are drafts as of this evaluation: Franklin, Kootenai, Lewis, Madison, Twin Falls (12.5% of available county plans; 11.36% of all counties). The elective element history is included in 41% of the plans and vision is included in 23%. Table 3 provides the descriptive statistics for county comprehensive plans.
Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for Counties
N / Minimum / Maximum / Mean / Std. DeviationCommunity Design / 39 / 0 / 4 / 1.21 / 1.490
Economic Develop / 39 / 0 / 4 / 2.36 / 1.013
Hazard / 39 / 0 / 5 / 1.97 / 1.308
Housing / 39 / 0 / 3 / 1.74 / 1.069
Implementation / 39 / 0 / 1 / .77 / .427
Land Use / 39 / 0 / 4 / 2.21 / 1.174
Natural Resources / 39 / 0 / 4 / 2.67 / 1.325
Population / 39 / 0 / 5 / 3.49 / 1.520
Property Rights / 39 / 0 / 1 / .72 / .456
Public Services / 39 / 0 / 9 / 5.72 / 2.892
Recreation / 39 / 0 / 4 / 1.69 / 1.321
Schools / 39 / 0 / 3 / 1.26 / .818
Special Areas / 39 / 0 / 1 / .82 / .389
Transportation / 39 / 0 / 8 / 3.90 / 2.683
Vision* / 39 / 0 / 1 / .23 / .427
History* / 39 / 0 / 1 / .41 / .498
Year / 41 / 1992 / 2009 / 2003.80 / 4.354
Pages / 40 / 7 / 520 / 103.75 / 109.597
Score / 40 / 5 / 48 / 30.50 / 11.884
D. County Seat Comprehensive Plan Findings
The mean score for county seat comprehensive plans is 30.42, with a standard deviation of 12.08. The average age of county comprehensive plans is about 9 years; the median year of adoption is 2003.5; the mean number of pages is 88. Five county seat plans used consultant assistance. The median year of adoption is 2003.5. The elective element history is included in 40% of the plans and vision is included in 40%. Table 4 provides descriptive statistics for county seat comprehensive plans.
Table 4 Descriptive Statistics for County Seats Plans
N / Minimum / Maximum / Mean / Std. DeviationCommunity Design / 30 / 0 / 4 / 2.6 / 1.453
Economic Development / 30 / 0 / 4 / 2.37 / 1.273
Hazards / 30 / 0 / 4 / 1.7 / 1.055
Housing / 30 / 0 / 3 / 1.6 / 1.276
Implementation / 30 / 0 / 1 / 0.67 / 0.479
Land Use / 30 / 0 / 4 / 2.47 / 1.008
Natural Resources / 30 / 0 / 4 / 1.93 / 1.388
Population / 30 / 0 / 5 / 3.5 / 1.358
Property Rights / 30 / 0 / 1 / 0.7 / 0.466
Public Services / 30 / 0 / 9 / 5.03 / 3.135
Recreation / 30 / 0 / 4 / 2.2 / 1.157
Schools / 30 / 0 / 3 / 1.2 / 0.925
Special Areas / 30 / 0 / 1 / 0.8 / 0.407
Transportation / 30 / 0 / 9 / 4.83 / 2.627
Vision* / 30 / 0 / 1 / 0.4 / 0.498
History* / 30 / 0 / 1 / 0.4 / 0.498
Year / 31 / 1980 / 2009 / 2000.9 / 7.648
Pages / 31 / 0 / 250 / 87.9 / 57.236
Score / 31 / 0 / 47 / 30.42 / 12.08
E. Other City Plan Findings (does not include county seat)
The mean score for other city comprehensive plans is 28.94, with a standard deviation of 12.58. The average age of county comprehensive plans is about 5 years; the median year of adoption is 2003.5; the mean number of pages is 83.2. The elective element history is included in 45% of the plans and vision is included in 32%. Table 5 provides descriptive statistics for other city plans.
Table 5Descriptive Statistics for Other City Plans
N / Minimum / Maximum / Mean / Std. DeviationCommunity Design / 31 / 0 / 4 / 1.29 / 1.716
Economic Development / 31 / 0 / 4 / 1.48 / 1.288
Hazards / 31 / 0 / 4 / 1.61 / 1.116
Housing / 31 / 0 / 3 / 1.35 / 1.112
Implementation / 31 / 0 / 1 / .74 / .445
Land Use / 31 / 1 / 4 / 2.58 / .807
Natural Resources / 31 / 0 / 4 / 2.45 / 1.362
Population / 31 / 0 / 5 / 3.03 / 1.538
Property Rights / 31 / 0 / 1 / .84 / .374
Public Services / 31 / 0 / 9 / 6.13 / 2.500
Recreation / 31 / 0 / 4 / 1.74 / 1.290
Schools / 31 / 0 / 2 / 1.16 / .820
Special Areas / 31 / 0 / 1 / .65 / .486
Transportation / 31 / 0 / 9 / 4.23 / 2.801
Vision* / 31 / 0 / 1 / .32 / .475
History* / 31 / 0 / 1 / .45 / .506
Year / 30 / 1996 / 2009 / 2003.90 / 3.367
Pages / 31 / 12 / 185 / 83.23 / 48.761
Score / 31 / 3 / 49 / 28.94 / 12.588
F. All City Plan Findings (includes county seats)
The mean score for all city plans reviewed is 30.16, with a standard deviation of 11.74. The average age of county comprehensive plans is about 7.51 years. The median year of adoption is 2004. Table 6 provides descriptive statistics for all available city plans.
Table 6 Descriptive Statistics for All Available City Plans
N / Minimum / Maximum / Mean / Std. DeviationCommunity Design / 61 / .00 / 4.00 / 1.9344 / 1.71142
Economic Development / 61 / .00 / 4.00 / 1.9180 / 1.34530
Hazards / 61 / .00 / 4.00 / 1.6557 / 1.07835
Housing / 61 / .00 / 3.00 / 1.4754 / 1.19173
Implementation / 61 / .00 / 1.00 / .7049 / .45986
Land Use / 61 / .00 / 4.00 / 2.5246 / .90566
Natural Resources / 61 / .00 / 4.00 / 2.1967 / 1.38828
Population / 61 / .00 / 5.00 / 3.2623 / 1.45947
Property Rights / 61 / .00 / 1.00 / .7705 / .42401
Public Services / 61 / .00 / 9.00 / 5.5902 / 2.85994
Recreation / 61 / .00 / 4.00 / 1.9672 / 1.23784
Schools / 61 / .00 / 3.00 / 1.1803 / .86618
Special Areas / 61 / .00 / 1.00 / .7213 / .45207
Transportation / 61 / .00 / 9.00 / 4.5246 / 2.71174
Vision* / 61 / .00 / 1.00 / .3607 / .48418
History* / 61 / .00 / 1.00 / .4262 / .49863
Pages / 61 / 12.00 / 250.00 / 86.9672 / 52.04260
Year / 61 / 1980.00 / 2009.00 / 2002.38 / 6.08321
Score / 61 / 3.00 / 49.00 / 30.1639 / 11.74050
IV. Summary Comments
•The way entities interpreted ‘analysis’ is highly variable. Some included great detail and others included only goals and policies, but referenced back office reports that were not included in the public document. Other plans included very little analysis, but included factual data requested in the statutes. This complicated the determination of congruence based on code verbiage alone and required the use of a third party document (the Smart Towns guide) to ground inter-rater reliability, which is about 95% for this project.
•The variability of interpretation of the code suggests that research into city and county planning capacity would be useful for a deeper interpretation of this data. Capacity is influenced by a wide range of factors including resource availability, staff, and funding dedication.
•Professionally created plan scores have high variability. Newer consultant-created plans tend to receive higher scores, but this is not consistently true.
•A “high” score is anything above 40 points; this represents plans with above 70% congruency with Idaho code.
•Many rural counties, like Lemhi and Boundary, have well informed plans with high congruence. Urban counties or counties near urban centers round out the highest scores list. This raises questions about what factors contribute to an entity’s capacity to create a plan with high congruence. Preliminary regression analysis suggests a complex model is required to uncover relationships between large numbers of variables describing many aspects of these communities.
•Counties with scores above 40 points include: Boundary, Bonner, Lemhi, Fremont, Madison, Jefferson, Blaine, Boise, Gem, Payette, Ada and Twin Falls.
•Countyseats with scores above 40 points include: Driggs, Emmett, Jerome, Moscow, Mountain Home, Payette, Rexburg, and Rigby.
•Other Cities with scores above 40 points include: Fruitland, Kuna, McCall, Meridian, Nampa and Plummer.
•A “low” score is anything between 1 and 19 points; this represents comprehensive plans with less than 33% congruency with state code.
•Counties with scores of 19 or below include: Bannock, Bonneville, Caribou, Franklin, Gooding, Latah, Owyhee, Power and Shoshone.
•County seats with scores of 19 or below include: Boise, Idaho Falls, Malad City, Salmon, and Sandpoint.
•Other cities with scores of 19 or below include: Aberdeen, Dietrich, Island Park, Kellogg, Melba, Rathdrum, Sugar City, Ucon and Wilder.
•Figure 2, on page 11, graphically represents the scores.
V. Deliverables
In addition to providing descriptive statistics on comprehensive plans regarding congruence with state statutes, as well as plan age, number of pages, and consultant developed, several other outputs were produced by the University of Idaho comprehensive plan analysis team. One output is an on-line database with links to all county and county seat comprehensive plan, and plans for a number of other Idaho cities. The website is: A map has also been developed which shows the score analysis visually. The map is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Map of Idaho County and County Seat Comprehensive Plan Evaluation Scores
Appendix A:
1. Idaho Statutes
TITLE 67: STATE GOVERNMENT AND STATE AFFAIRS
CHAPTER 65: LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING[2]
67-6508. PLANNING DUTIES. It shall be the duty of the planning or planning and zoning commission to conduct a comprehensive planning process designed to prepare, implement, and review and update a comprehensive plan, hereafter referred to as the plan. The plan shall include all land within the jurisdiction of the governing board. The plan shall consider previous and existing conditions, trends, desirable goals and objectives, or desirable future situations for each planning component. The plan with maps, charts, and reports shall be based on the following components as they may apply to land use regulations and actions unless the plan specifies reasons why a particular component is unneeded.
(a) Property Rights -- An analysis of provisions which may be necessary to insure that land use policies, restrictions, conditions and fees do not violate private property rights, adversely impact property values or create unnecessary technical limitations on the use of property and analysis as prescribed under the declarations of purpose in chapter 80, title 67, Idaho Code.